A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed

HOW ODD THAT MASSACRES MOSTLY HAPPEN IN "GUN-FREE ZONES"! When will the brain-dead Left wake up and draw the obvious conclusion? Gun bans kill kids

Thursday, February 01, 2018

The Washington Post Ignores Right to Bear Arms

In an article about shall issue carry permits in Washington, D.C., the authors, Peter Hermann and Peter Jamison, ignore half of the rights contained in the Second Amendment. It is rather odd, considering it is the main topic of their article.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit struck down the "may issue" law in D.C. specifically. Here is an excerpt from Wrenn that shows how strong the opinion is. From Wrenn v. D.C.:

Our
first question is whether the Amendment’s “core” extends to publicly
carrying guns for self-defense. The District argues that it does not,
citing Heller I’s observation that “the need for defense of self,
family, and property is most acute” in the home. Id. at 628. But the
fact that the need for self-defense is most pressing in the home doesn’t
mean that self-defense at home is the only right at the Amendment’s
core. After all, the Amendment’s “core lawful purpose” is self-defense,
id. at 630, and the need for that might arise beyond as well as within
the home. Moreover, the Amendment’s text protects the right to “bear”as
well as “keep”arms. For both reasons, it’s more natural to view the
Amendment’s core as including a law-abiding citizen’s right to carry
common firearms for self-defense beyond the home (subject again to
relevant “longstanding” regulations like bans on carrying “in sensitive
places”). Id. at 626.

This reading finds support in
parts of Heller I that speak louder than the Court’s aside about where
the need for guns is “most acute.” That remark appears when Heller I
turns to the particular ban on possession at issue there. By then the
Court has spent over fifty pages giving independent and seemingly equal
treatments to the right to “keep” and to “bear,” first defining those
“phrases” and then teasing out their implications. See id. at 570-628.
In that long preliminary analysis, the Court elaborates that to “bear”
means to “‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing
or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for
offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another
person.’” Id. at 584 (quoting Muscarello v. United States, 524 U.S. 125,
143 (1998) (Ginsburg, J., dissenting)). That definition shows that the
Amendment’s core must span, in the Court’s own words, the “right to
possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.” Id. at 592
(emphasis added).

City officials have long fought efforts to chip away at the District’s strict controls since the high court used a local case in 2008 to declare that an individual has a right to gun ownership.

(snip)

City officials decided not to appeal to the Supreme Court because of the potential national implications. An unfavorable ruling could have weakened gun control regulations in states such as California, New York and Maryland.

(snip)

“I wasn’t going to try to manufacture a reason. It’s the Bill of Rights. You shouldn’t need a reason,” he said recently, referring to the Second Amendment right to own a firearm.

It is almost humorous the length Peter and Peter of the post go to not mention the right to bear arms. They specifically mention that the D.C. government will not appeal the case, because they fear the Supreme Court will uphold the right (to bear arms).

The court case that mandated the change in D.C. law, was all about the right to bear arms. But the right to bear arms is conspicuously absent from the Washington Post article. Perhaps an editor removed it as Post policy.

Subscribe To Gun Watch

Background

“The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” -- Thomas Jefferson

Syndicated columnist Charley Reese (1937-2013): "Gun control by definition affects only honest people. When a politician tells you he wants to forbid you from owning a firearm or force you to get a license, he is telling you he doesn’t trust you. That’s an insult. ... Gun control is not about guns or crime. It is about an elite that fears and despises the common people."

The rifle itself has no moral stature, since it has no will of its own. Naturally, it may be used by evil men for evil purposes, but there are more good men than evil, and while the latter cannot be persuaded to the path of righteousness by propaganda, they can certainly be corrected by good men with rifles -- Jeff Cooper (1920-2006)

Note for non-American readers: Crime reports from America which describe an offender just as a "teen" or "teenager" almost invariably mean a BLACK teenager.

We are advised to NOT judge ALL Muslims by the actions of a few lunatics, but we are encouraged to judge ALL gun owners by the actions of a few lunatics.

Two lines below of a famous hymn that would be incomprehensible to Leftists today ("honor"? "right"? "freedom?" Freedom to agree with them is the only freedom they believe in)

First to fight for right and freedom,
And to keep our honor clean

It is of course the hymn of the USMC -- still today the relentless warriors that they always were.

The intellectual Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius (AD 121-180) said: "The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane."

How much do you know about Trayvon Martin? Did you recognize him in the picture above? If not you may need to know more about him. It's all here (Backups here and here)

“An armed society is a polite society. Manners are good when one may have to back up his acts with his life.” -- Robert A. Heinlein

After all the serious stuff here, maybe we need a funny picture of a cantankerous cat